[BillPeener]

Quote: Originally Posted by Mav3rek7

As a programmer, I can tell you that changing a visual aspect should be a super simple and quick/easy fix. Changing the way something behaves programmatically is a much more time consuming/deeper issue. I understand people upset that uni-fixes are done before gameplay fixes. But the simple fact of the matter is, that a gameplay fix that would alter the way the game behaves would take a little time to re-program, debug, test, tidy up the programming, and then test again, and then post. It's not just as simple as typing "make (x) do (y) when (z) happens". When you are trying to correct a programming/logic/behavior issue you end up throwing a lot of programming bandaids/bad code at it. Once you have the issue fixed, you have to go back and tidy up the programming. It's a time consuming/involved process. Trust the process.

First you say you're a programmer, then you say visual graphics are "super simple and quick/easy" to fix. If it's so easy, then why didn't games 10-15 years ago have official socks, yet they had contract extensions (or other related logic)?

As a programmer, if Sony came to me right now and said, "you can either program the socks, or you can program the contract extensions", I'm taking the latter every single day. I don't know how SCEA's visual graphics system works. Maybe they've made it relatively simple to add new gloves, shoes, socks, and so on.

Even then, they still have to update that every year as the engine changes. I don't know how you can make the argument that contract logic is significantly more complicated / time-consuming than handling graphic upgrades every single year. Because remember, contract logic doesn't necessarily have to change much, if at all, each year. Once it's done, it's kinda just done.

I'm willing to leave open the possibility that the visuals are actually easier / quicker to implement than particular gameplay mechanisms, but I have a lot of doubt.